evilDagmar

[Log in to get rid of this advertisement]

Well, the good news for you is that you don't have to manually do this, if you write or have an installkernel script, like...

http://dagmar.droplinegnome.org/expe.../installkernel

...because then you can do `make install` during the final phase of a kernel upgrade, and all those details will be handled for you.

pdw_hu

In my opinion Grub just has a lot of features that a normal user/computer doesn't need. Who needs to edit his bootmenu on-the-fly?
Lilo just needs to be setup once correctly, then it'll just work...

Of course someone who changes drives/distros/os' frequently things could change. Still I find Lilo to be more functional than Grub which, imo is just bloated (for me atleast).

pappy_mcfae

If you add the word "compact" without the quotes to your /etc/lilo.conf file, those dots go away. That makes lilo boot the system more quickly.

Blessed be!
Pappy

b0uncer

Grub offers a small environment for editing the boot information such as kernel location or parameters on-the-fly, so in some cases where LILO would be unable to boot, Grub configuration can be altered easily to allow booting. For example if you forget to edit the configuration file, or if you forget to add some kernel parameters without which your machine won't boot properly. Grub Legacy is becoming older every day, and a successor is being written for it - check the website for more information. Grub is, and it's new version will hopefully be even more flexible than LILO - the latter one does work, and it's advantage is that it fits into MBR along with it's configuration which makes it good for small systems, but if you ever want to upgrade kernels easily or even automatically, Grub just makes a strong point.

Then there's this problem about configuration files. LILO needs to be rerun after changing the configuration file for the changes to be written ("applied"). Grub doesn't need this, as it reads its configuration file from disk. Both have good sides. I just don't like to write to MBR (where I usually install the bootloader - that's what the space is reserved for), because too many times it happens that after the distribution initial setup rerunning lilo reports problems, and either I can't write = change boot configuration, or if I force it, it makes the machine unable to boot - trasher partition table information, for example. This is a major drawback with LILO, because there's a danger every time the configuration is changed. With Grub you only have to install it once, and then it works.

Neither of the two is perfect, but overall I think Grub is better. It just works better. Learning it's configuration file syntax after knowing LILO's takes some time (about 10-15 minutes), but after that it's a lot easier, and has not caused me headache. LILO tends to cause me headache every now and then, and the situation I hate the most is when I install a Linux distribution like Slackware that is good except that it wants to install LILO by default, and after that the machine refuses to boot because LILO failed to install correctly.

I just hope Grub 2 will get rid of the problems Grub Legacy has at the moment, and make a better bootloader for us all.

Alien_Hominid

EDIT: Probably said nonsense. Deleted.

Personally, I would prefer everything lying in an MBR, just because it is supposed to hold bootloader.

MORE EDIT:


That's not right. Lilo lets you add kernel parameters on the fly. And don't use force, but use root=/dev/sdax and then after boot rerun lilo.

pdw_hu

This is like forgetting something from a kernel config. Nothing saves you there either
About having to run it after changes: is writing 'lilo' in a command prompt so hard?
If it runs okay, at least you know it'll work after the reboot.
If not, you can fix it.

For me Lilo always worked properly, no MBR write errors, no nothing.
(Of course I've heard all sorts of problems ppl get with Lilo)

duryodhan

ohh comeon ... Grub is just better , in terms of features .. you CAN'T argue with that ... on the fly editing of the kernel image etc. etc. can only be done by grub.

That said, I don't need that in my install ... thats why lilo works fine for me, and I use lilo.

so yeah, if you want to debate on which is more usable , then sure have a debate. But grub kicks lilo's ass in features and thats hard to ignore.

gnashley

I'll bet that, some day, Slackware will use something other than lilo. Then lilo will suddenly become evil or 'unsavory' among 'true' Slackers...

Lufbery

Personally, I use Lilo. It works and I only need to set it up once after each installation.

BUT, Grub is a good boot loader, no doubt about it. In Slackware 12.2, Grub 0.97 (legacy) is available in the /extra folder. If you're a slacker and want to use Grub, go ahead. The distribution provides it.

Regards,

-Drew

sahko

Nah, true slackers will always use lilo.
Along with aumix, madplay, mpg321, rexima, seejpeg, & workbone of course. :P

gargamel

In many scenarios Grub is more flexible or more comfortable or more error-tolerant than Lilo. If something goes wrong, Grub drops you back to a command line where you can try out other options or correct configuration errors. Lilo requires a reboot and a chroot procedure for this.

On the other hand, in a few scenarios, Lilo is more advance. One example are RAID-1 installations. LILO automatically copies itself to all disks of the array, if you run lilo, whereas for Grub you need to specify precisely and in detail what you want.

For standard scenarios, both work well.

In the future I think we'll see one of the newer contenders become the standard, such as syslinux.

gargamel